Skip to comments.The Use of Excerpts
Posted on 05/11/2011 11:46:37 PM PDT by conservativehawkeye
Something interesting just happened tonight when I just tried posting an entire article from The Des Moines Register... It isn't allowed to because of a copyright complaint...
So now I can't point to articles in the largest newspaper in my state because people don't realize you don't post entire articles here (or anywhere) without permission.
But let's just continue to whine about excerpts. Here's a question, if we aren't supposed to do it, why does Free Republic give us that option when we post?
When we post entire articles it is not fair to the authors of the original content whether it is The Des Moines Register, Fox News, or some local blogger.
Ask 15 lawyers, and you’ll get 15 different answers...
From Columbia U.:
“Because the rule of fair use is not precisely defined, it is advisable to request the copyright owner’s written permission for any quotation or quotations of 150 words or more.”
Generally 150-200 words may be copied, but never more than 3 paragraphs.
You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
Basically, you may post anything public on boards,
web pages, and or magazines, as long as you claim that it does NOT belong to you, site the original author, and that you are using it only to represent, and not gain anything from their use, unless the owning entity specifically forbids it.
Because of Free Republic's popularity and massive amount of pages, it is far more likely for a full text article to be hit on FreeRepublic via Google or another search engine, than it would be likely to be found on the Des Moines Register's website itself.
The average ‘page view’ income that any third tier website earns is less than a quarter penny, including people who choose to click on presented ads. I'm pretty sure that the Des Moines Register is average in paying over $14 per first time subscriber, and likely keeps with the average of paying $1.35 per web reader (advertising costs.)
Looking at the pure economics of it, the possible loss of a quarter of a penny to perhaps gain a likely reader vs the absolute cost of $1.35 per web reader is a gosh darn bargain. Not only that, but it is done at zero cost to them (no bandwidth expenses for the person reading the article.)
Excerpting, on the other hand, costs the paper the money for the serving of the article, the display of ads which likely aren't paid for via exposures but either on contract as an extension of print advertising, or compensated on a per click basis, which is highly unlikely to happen when a reader is just going to the website to read the rest of the article that wasn't displayed here. Beyond, a lot of Freepers link to the ‘print version’ of the article, which strips the ads out anyway, so all that is left is the direct cost of serving the article a few hundred (or thousands) of times.
All in all, the paper simply loses money when an article is excepted on FreeRepublic, rather than taking advantage of the free advertising that FreeRepublic’s exposure grants them. Same with bloggers and other content. Honestly, a lot of content creators should probably be paying FreeRepublic to display their full articles, as they certainly gain benefits from the exposure.
Most of the sourced material posted to Free Republic is posted according to the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law for non-commercial news reporting, education and discussion purposes. We used to post full text of most articles so we could document history as it's being made, but more and more news agencies are now requesting us to post excerpts and links only to their material, and some are requesting that we post no material at all from their sites. We are complying with all such requests. Click here for the latest list of copyright requests.
My suggestion is to paraphrase the article. Then you click on excerpt and state your opinion about the piece below it.
Let folks, if they’re curious, go to the full article.
Most people seem to be happy with paraphrasing and you are not trampling on the publisher’s copyright.
The Des Moines Register is a Gannett paper. Gannett has threatened to sue FR for posting even excerpts. Apparently FR responded by banning Gannett papers.
Wait, you woke up this morning to whine about posting whole articles.
Oh, looking at your history you have been whining for days.
Oh, look, you're a blogger.
Go away until to grow up.
When I post articles from my blog I try to post the whole thing here. But because Wordpress butchers the formatting it’s always better for me to post my content in a PDF, which is much more readable and allows images to be used wthout a fuss. I’ve tried to figure out how to get PDF’s to show here, or how to get even the content from the PDF’s to show here. As far as I can tell it requires a lot more know-how than I have. The more time I have to spend trying to become a computer expert, the less time I have to concentrate on my research.
I don’t earn any money for clicks at all on my blog. My only interest is informing the public, and I have a standing invitation to anybody to copy and use anything I’ve got as long as they keep the content accurate. The more we can get the information out there, the better, and I don’t care who knows the information is from me.
As a result of all this fuss over whether blogs can route traffic from Free Republic, I haven’t been posting my content in posts here at Free Republic. I’ve had some major posts that have gotten little scrutiny because I feel that if my content is not wanted here then people know where to find me and can subscribe to find out when I post something new. Maybe people need to realize that’s what they need to do.
I can say that when I did post my content here and provided links I did not get a lot of traffic, for whatever reason.
The more research I do, the more I realize what total crap the “legitimate” news sources are. It bugs me that linking to them is considered fine but linking to blogs - many of which are the only places carrying the real meat/research on a story - is somehow suspect, regardless of whether the blog has any monetary interest involved. I fear that we are letting bickering among ourselves get in the way of the real battle that needs to be done for the sake of this country.
I don’t contribute as much to Free Republic as I would like to, simply because our finances are a shambles right now largely due to vehicle repairs. But I do contribute monthly what my husband has agreed that we can manage. I gain no income from my blog. Financially speaking, I get a negative gain from Free Republic, but it is worth it because of the important work being done at Free Republic.
The idea that my research makes FR a crappy place that nobody would want to visit definitely makes me feel less than welcome. If a silencing effect is what you’re after - to keep us “crappy” bloggers from encroaching on the credibility you get from posting good ol’ “mainstream media” content, then congratulations, because that is the result.
The main purpose of the forum is to post the crappy news source, then comment on how crappy it is. A blog post is usually an opinion piece and should be used sparingly. I’m not sure why bloggers think we are all fasinated by their opinions.
Freshly minted bloggers who excerpt their material in order
to drive traffic away from Free Republic so as to gain blog
hits are scummy pimps.
Don't be a scummy pimp.
You are not a typical blogger - not by a longshot.
I thought the purpose of the forum was for conservative and Constitutional activism, which relies on people being INFORMED above and beyond the crappy non-news of the so-called “credible” media.
We can b!tch until the cows come home but unless we do something to change things it’s just psychotherapy to make us feel better. If we don’t like the crappy non-news sources we need to come up with something better.
I don’t look at a lot of blogs but the ones I do look at are INFORMATIONAL. They report on research that nobody else is doing. Which is what I also have on my blog. And there is NO - repeat, NO - major source on the web that will report all the credible research. You would not believe the censorship that happens even among so-called “conservative” news sites.
The RINO’s, “mainstream media”, courts, etc are all in bed with each other. That’s why even decent elected officials go off the rails once they get to DC, and forget who they work for. When you have a dysfunctional system the only way to change it is by some kind of intervention - some planned or unplanned event that interrupts the status quo. Because the media and politicians are holding the US process hostage by their own dysfunctional relationship, the only way out of it is by sources coming in that are NOT dysfunctional. They are OUTSIDE the dysfunction. This is why the DC cabal is scared to death of Sarah Palin; because she has firmly aligned herself in the “I don’t give a rip what the Washington elites think about me” camp. She is an outsider, or at least she was before she joined Fox. I’m hoping Fox isn’t corrupting her.
This is a systemic problem and if it was going to be fixed by people b!tching about how bad the media is, it would have been fixed a long time ago. Andrew Breitbart had the right idea when he chose to start an alternative media source, and he’s been doing great as far as he has been willing to reach, but there’s stuff he won’t touch either, because he thinks it will damage his still-fledgling credibility.
So what I’m saying is that we need to realize that the current media system is killing this country. If we are serious about saving this country - and not just trying to get a little b!tching in so we can feel more high and mighty than those lowlife liberals - then we need to work on totally scrapping the current media models.
That ain’t gonna happen if the only people we allow to be heard are the current media sources that deserve to be shunned and ignored.
What gets me is that there have been a number of times I’ve heard about copyright complaints against FR.
Then you go out and Google the article and see like forty other sites that have it posted in its entirety.
Not all blogs are equal. It is possible to reach an agreement to post your material without fuss, we just need to OK it with Jim. Posting a PDF directly is not technically possible, but posting a link to a file is if you can host the file elsewhere. Then, if everyone knows you have Jim’s blessing, there is no problem.
These things can be worked out. Believe me, if we blindly ban people because of a brainless rule then we lose good conservative thought. We are not like that and that would hurt FR as a conservative forum. Our intent is ONLY to keep Free Republic from the growing scourge of blog pimping as a marketing tool.
Try sending a FReepmail to humblegunner with your ideas (he’s the blogger overlord) and I believe that something can be worked out. OK?
Since May 6, 2011
What you don't seem to realize is that the forum scraps the media models. The media will always have ad money to spend so long as there is a boob tube with some shocking new report at 11. This forum picks apart the media bias, errors and lies quickly. We don't need a blogger to do that, sometimes they help, more often they add noise (e.g. the birther crap). The country will be killed by Soros and others who fund lots of manipulation, not just in the media. They have lots of plants in social media. They fund disrupters and we our share here. The way to fight it is a large, strong and smart forum base, not a few whiz kid bloggers who think they have all the answers.
Why make up your own rules on Free Republic? The Admin Moderators have been clear the limit is 300 words or 1/2 of the article, whichever is less.
Sorry. I should have pinged you to post #22 since I was talking about you.
I listed all three of you since it’s hard to tell which hat you’re wearing at any given time.
By the way, Shane, I noticed that you said you wanted your “shanevanderhart” account to be zotted, but they Admins wouldn’t let you do it? I’ve added a couple of people to this ping who might be able to help.
Early on, humblegunner made me aware of the concerns with blog pimping and I made sure to post the full post/content as much as possible whenever I posted about something from my blog. As far as I know he doesn’t have a problem with my posting. Lately I’ve had more graphic-intense content so it really has to involve a link to the PDF hosted on my blog.
Recently some threads here at FR were pulled because they referenced research done by somebody who is “not welcome on Free Republic”. There were a lot of good comments on that thread, and I had used the thread to consolidate some of what I had learned but haven’t yet done a blog post on. Sort of collecting my thoughts and gathering the links in one place so I could come back to it and post on it. When I came back the next morning the whole thing was gone. All that information that people had posted disappeared down the memory hole, all because the thread addressed content by somebody who is “not welcome at Free Republic”.
Al Sharpton is probably not welcome at Free Republic, but we still have posts that talk about what he’s said.
I know the above scenario is not directly related to the “blog pimping” issue, and I very much appreciate and respect what you said about not wanting to have a generic rule that would cut out a lot of good conservative content. There are always judgment calls to be made, and people will have different opinions on those. I do hope that the moderators and everybody else will respect that people put a lot of time into some of their posts, and to destroy all that because somebody doesn’t like somebody who was mentioned somewhere in the thread is disappointing and frustrating. I hope that the default is towards free speech, trusting that Freepers are intelligent enough to sort out the good, the bad, and the ugly. That’s our trademark: Freeper eye for the liberal lie.
One of the reasons I greatly prefer to post the whole content of my blog post here and why I hope other people will post things in their entirety also is because that keeps it from being able to be totally erased from the web. FR archives are SO critical for documenting information that has since been scrubbed - or attempted to be scrubbed - from the web. The waybackmachine keeps some stuff, but the Google people decide what can be accessed and what can’t (and they’re the ones doing the scrubbing anyway, in many cases) AND you can’t access unless you know the exact web address. FR archives have those links. That is really critical stuff. So for anybody who wants their material to stay out there, it makes a LOT of sense to post as much as you possibly can when you post at FR.
That archiving function is a great result of the concern over “blog pimping”. So I guess I can thank the anti-blog-pimping crew for helping to ensure that actual content, and not just links, is preserved in the archives. Thanks for that! =)
I’m glad to hear that you can work out something with the forum. Your particular case sounds a little complicated and I personally can’t think of a solution to your problem off the top of my head but I hope you can come up with something.
The mods are the final word. The pimpbusters are NOT mods. We merely suggest things. And I don’t think you’ll get past the people “not allowed on FR” problem. That’s pretty serious. But that’s just my opinion.
Good luck to you, FRiend.
I appreciate her work on Ubama’s background and don’t appreciate your insults towards her efforts.
The Birth Certificate is but one element. The mainstream press is being forced to expose themselves. The “birther crap” you mentioned is currently being examined in the 9th circuit Court, maybe you missed it?
I do believe you should crawl out from under the rock.
Where you been since 1998?
As long as we’re talking about the substance brought up by the MSM and folks like Chris Matthews, they will continue to be prominent voices. And as long as there are people listening to them we have to address it.
But one of the biggest vulnerabilities our country has is the class of people who ONLY hears CNN (for instance). As long as there is that class of people, and it’s a large class of people, we need to try to either drive CNN to cover content they don’t want to cover (like the “birther crap”, as you call it since it apparently doesn’t bug you at all that government agencies have been forging documents and covering up blatant forgeries on behalf of Soros’ illegal puppet Obama) OR drive them off the air.
Acting as if the only “legitimate” news sources are non-bloggers doesn’t help those goals at all.
I know of very few bloggers who think they “know it all”. The ones I know are involved in research and know FAR MORE about their subject matter than anybody in the MSM and would also be the FIRST to say that we don’t know it all and that is precisely the problem. The MSM, OTOH, tends to say we know as much as we need to know and anybody who researches any deeper than a superficial scratching is “crazy”.
Seems like a lot of bloggers are attention whores and just copy and paste other writers’ work to their blog. I come here for news, and don’t expect to see the same article from a paper and 10 blogs.
Did you see this exchange between Sharpton and Cornell from April 2011? Seems The Black America experience is being divided and resentment is acute....
Alternative explanation: the paper doc was received from Hawaii in the mail and scanned and then converted into layers. Some fainter text and signatures went into one layer and darker stuff into another. Nothing much else would need to be done other than export to PDF.
Orly Taitz who is bringing the case to the ninth circuit is a poster child for inability to reason correctly about image scanning and processing. Her statement was "After the hourlong hearing, she said the document's serial number was out of sequence, the typing wasn't aligned, and it was printed on green paper instead of white paper like other Hawaiian birth records of that era." She doesn't seem to realize that the paper from Hawaii is new, not from "that era". It was produced by copying the old record on white paper from the book onto the new paper which was then stamped and signed.
What makes you think CNN is going to cover birthers as anything other than lunatics? Hawaii mailed a real doc to Obama, someone scanned it, made some layers, exported as PDF, then the WH posted it on the website to keep the birthers going on about conspiracy while the plebes watching CNN see the original document being held on camera. The facts most simply support a document being mailed from Hawaii and put on display. Other theories are woefully inadequate (e.g. part of a signature in one layer and part in another). The WH PDF is nothing more than a rope-a-dope digital artifact designed to waste people's time and paint the opposition as lunatic fringe.
The reader can figure it for themselves Palmer. Like sausage, its not always pretty.
Why criticize Orly here? She is not here and again, we can easily see her mistakes just as you do.
The point I’m making is this. Some people will criticize and call another’s contributions just crap and I don’t believe it helps the atmosphere at all.
I am surprised though, to see that you follow the subject.
I was under the impression you we’re saying the subject was just birther crap.
Where has anybody seen the original document being held on camera? When has a raised seal ever been documentably visible to be examined for genuineness? Show me.
And you’re crazy if if you think it is no problem that the HDOH apparently had 3 different versions of a birth certificate for Obama, apparently using the same basic document as the fake “Kenyan birth reported by Grandma Dunham” BC - on which document the latest long-form forgery was also based.
Anybody looking at that who says it’s fine and dandy for a state DOH to play this kind of cat-and-mouse game for political purposes (to frame people who want legitimate, authentic documentation as “crazy) is so beyond both sanity and humanity that it’s a waste of time to even try to reason with them.
If that’s where most Americans are, then we may as well give up right now, because there’s no way to fix that kind of deficiency. I prefer to believe that people are simply ignorant, in which case giving them genuine facts is all that can be done. If the facts aren’t enough, then we deserve everything we get.
And we will get that soon. Mark my words. Things are now being set in motion that will destroy this nation. If we survive the weekend and Corsi’s book is released we can talk further.
I’m not here to help the atmosphere, but to call it like I see it. If I can do that and keep it civil, that’s even better, but I am not going to pretend that the birther logic is anything other than half-baked crap.
I'm sorry if I implied that it's fine and dandy. It is not. It is clearly fraud, like I said the ML/NJ in another thread, but a subtle fraud in which a real document mailed from Hawaii was scanned and post-processed to alter the appearance before releasing it to the public. The content was not altered AFAIK, just the appearance. It brings up the possibility of altered content, but none of the presented content is controvertible.
It would be great to see a birther argue that the document scan was altered: converted into layers and thresholded differently for layers. That much is completely obvious from the evidence. Instead the birthers present a completely unfounded theory of forgery as if someone took different pieces of imagery (from where?) and put them in different layers. Some letters from some words went in one layer and the rest of the letters in another layer. Some parts of one signature went in one layer and the rest in another. That still points to processing in the methods I have described starting from a scan of a real paper artifact. Either way the facts point to the processing that I describe, not to some undescribed "forgery".
I don’t know enough about computers to say much about the layers. I’m more stupid and basic: there is no seal on the claimed “photograph” of the document. I photographed my own daughter’s death certificate and no matter how bad the photo was, there were signs of a seal. This is a clear photograph taken at close range and there should have been a clear image of a seal. There isn’t. That is the legal test for a document actually being from the government agency - the seal. And it’s missing.
What he posted is lacking the seal that was on the document they sent him. This isn’t even seriously PRETENDING to be the same document he received from the HDOH.
Even for a n00b you certainly have problems. Generally speaking when entering a complex and well-developed community like Free Republic, it’s best to spend some time reading the room, you know? Joining a community, especially one as well-established as Free Republic, and then spending one’s time complaining about rules is....well ignorant. Asking questions in a respectful, inquisitive manner, is much wiser.
Dude, chill out. Spend some time reading articles. Then spend some time commenting on them. You’ll discover a lot about the conservatives here, and you’ll develop some badly needed respect for what happens here. It’s a learning-curve thing, and in our I-want-it-now culture such important things tend to fall by the wayside. Free Republic isn’t the average website and the average quick-and-dirty methods don’t work here.
There is a seal......
Thanks for alerting me to this.
Even though it was apparently so light that it was not caught on the Applewhite photo, that “seal” proves the document inauthentic. See http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/obama-bc-seal-contradicts-factcheck/
In other words you are fully prepared to use any available evidence to support your theory; not that there is anything wrong with that as long as you use all available evidence and show that it is coherent with the theory. My theory is that the WH PDF is a creation of scanning a paper document (which could be legitimate or fraudulently obtained or forged) then it was diddled in the graphics program. The diddling was mainly thresholding by line widths and darkness into layers similar to what would be done prior to OCR. The result of layers of various junk (some parts of sigs in one layer and some in another) is not consistent with creating the digital artifact directly from bits unless an extra step is added (namely the same step as in my theory).
The seal does not provide enough evidence to support or contradict my theory and the idiot reporter they showed to (picked on purpose) took a low quality snap (probably with her cellphone) and did not bother to read what it said. In my opinion she is simply a tool, part of the rope-a-dope that they can point to as an inarguable witness to the existence of a physical artifact. Obviously they could pass the paper around to multiple reporters or hand it to an expert or two, but chose not to. That choice supports my theory.
"I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR."
"If a blogger cant or refuses do that, and if he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then Id just as soon he doesnt post here."
"Were not really that interested in driving OUR traffic to YOUR blog."
opinions is what free republic is basically....and the discussion of.....
if not for conservative bloggers the media will win the war.....
this place has changed drastically over the past few years......and not for the better IMHO.....
The problem is not the photo. This gal did a better job at showing the “seal” than Scott Applewhite did.
The problem is that this seal isn’t even the same size as the “seal” they used for the Factcheck forgery, which shows that one or the other or both are faked seals.
That stands on its own without any talk about layers or anything else. That is just visible to anybody who has eyes. It’s not the reporter’s fault. It’s just a bad forgery. Period.
Fair use is defined differently based on who wants to utilize that "fair use".
For example - there are liberal outlets who repost full articles and extended passages from many of the publications/sources on the "do not post" list here on FR... why? Because lawyers and judges are bought and paid for by the deep pockets of the those who also run these "news" outlets (who freely use those outlets to spread propaganda and other lies in support of their own particular political/moral position).
Seems that a "logical" application of "fair use" would and should follow along the rules for citation/quoting/excerpts in formal writing.
1. Always give the source for your material/quote (and FR requires this by default - which directs more traffic to those web sites/sources - so they benefit... but details details).
2. Anything more than three lines directly quoted must be indicated as such (covered again by #1).
3. Quoting of full articles is generally considered wrong/bad practice (unless given permission under specific circumstances by the author/publisher).
I can kind of understand some situations - many media outlets subscribe for/or pay per-article to the AP and other organizations for stories. IF it is posted under that license on say the NY Slimes web site - then one of us were to copy an entire article (or substantially all of it) and post it here with no citation at all, or with only a link back to the NY Slimes... that wouldn't exactly be a "fair use" -
But it is truly beyond my ability to comprehend why some sources absolutely refuse to even allow a small excerpt with a link back - which does not infringe on any copyright, and actually directs MORE web hits/traffic to the full posted article on their own page. The ONLY explanation then, is politics. But for a court to even look at that give the media outlet a judgment in their favor, to me, proves the corruption in the system.